Talk:Glorfindel of Gondolin
Here, it is excepted that the two are the same person. I'm afraid I am going to contest this. Sources? Proofs? Justifications?--DarkLantern (talk) 22:53, January 6, 2013 (UTC) :As I thought I fairly well explained on the page, it's accepted by some that they are the same person, and it's accepted by others that they are not. It's quite clear from Tolkien's notes that when he wrote The Lord of the Rings they were definitely not supposed to be the same person (The Peoples of Middle-earth (The History of Middle-earth, Vol. 12): XIII Last Writings, Glorfindel). Because he later wanted to maintain the idea that one elf's name was never duplicated by another, near the end of his life (1972) he put his idea for explaining that the one was the reincarnation of the other, in his private notes. However, he never implemented this in any of his stories, published or unpublished, and therefore there is still no justification in canon that they are the same person. It's certainly possible to think of them as the same person, but the question is still open enough, and the controversy so genuine, that having two separate pages is justified. :You can read more about the controversy in [http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/glorfindel.html The Problem of the Two Glorfindels] in the Encyclopedia of Arda. :But if it's decided to merge them, I'll gladly do it. - Gradivus, 23:32, January 6, 2013 (UTC) ::If he intending to put this idea into action but never got to due to his death, then it could be said that it IS the truth now. However, if readers and fans decide this on their own then it might be judged as fandom, however being that he was going to put his reincarnation idea (some official proof of the two being one) into writing could be a reason to just go ahead and do it. I'm a bit divided but for now I still say merge.--DarkLantern (talk) 23:43, January 6, 2013 (UTC) :::That's a valid argument, but the problem with that theory is that in his private notes Tolkien often wrote out ideas that he was considering, with the intention to decide later if he would keep them, once he had fully written them out and explored them. There are instances where Tolkien wrote ideas and/or expositions in those private notes and then later, after consideration, discarded them after deciding that for some reason or other they wouldn't work. Here, Tolkien died before he could decide, so there's no way of knowing whether he really intended at all to put his idea into action. We just don't know what he would have decided! - Gradivus, 23:59, January 6, 2013 (UTC) :::Good points, but haven't you already decided given your argument that he wrote it down that the reincarnation idea was going to be but he never implemented this in any of his stories, published, so you've decided that since he never implemented it your decision has been keep them separate. It is true that he was known for writing things down and then changing his mind. I have not read that part of The History of Middle-earth. I'm still divided. I would still accept the unpublished theory as a fact and keep them one, but if I did that would that be setting a new rule that would contravene the rules I have laid down? I think we may approaching a time in which new precedents are going to have to implemented to justify the parts of Tolkien's works that where never finished or never explained in published works, that we have speculated on a bit. Your Theories about Tom Bombadil was a start of them and I agreed with it due to heavy speculation. Thoughts?--DarkLantern (talk) 01:22, January 7, 2013 (UTC) : I agree that new precedents should be made, and in this case I think the president should be for not establishing something as part of Tolkien canon unless there is established, definitive, published proof that Tolkien had decided to make it so. That would include previously unpublished works that have been passed by Christopher Tolkien as consistent with the rest of Tolkien's work, but should not include ideas or possible explanations explored in Tolkien's private notes that were not actually incorporated in any tales or official pronouncements. Just as the theories of fans should not be put into a main article because we don't know whether Tolkien agreed with them, similarly we should not accept the merging of the two Glorfindels because we don't know whether Tolkien would have decided to follow through with the idea. Incidentally, I've added additional sources, proofs, and justifications to the Glorfindel of Gondolin page, as you helpfully suggested, which should give more credence to keeping the entries apart. - Gradivus, 15:32, January 7, 2013 (UTC)